Chapter VII: Part 7

Your first charge ran thus, (Remarks, page 15.) _How have such abuses as these been thrown out by you――――against our――――regular clergy, not the highest or the worthiest excepted!_――――I answered, “I am altogether clear in this matter, as often as it has been objected: neither do I desire to receive any other treatment from the clergy, than they have received from me to this day.” page 30.

You reply, 1. _One instance of your misrepresenting and injuring a preacher of our church I mentioned_, (page 105.) Mentioned! Well: but did you _prove_ it was an _injury_ or _misrepresentation_? I know not that you once attempted it. 2. You next quote part of a letter from the third journal; (page 36.) wherein (according to your account) the _most considerable of our clergy are abused, and at once accused in a very gross manner_. (page 106.) Set down the whole paragraph, and I will prove, that this also is naked truth, and no abuse at all. You say, 3. _You approved of_ Whitefield’s _railing against the clergy_――――i. e. I say, “Mr. _Whitefield_ preached, concerning the _Holy Ghost which all who believe are to receive_; not without a just, though severe censure of those, who preach as if there were no Holy Ghost,” (_Journal 3._ page 65.) Nor is this railing, but melancholy truth. I have myself heard several preach in this manner. 4. You cite my words, “Woe unto you, ye blind leaders of the blind! How long will you pervert the right ways of the Lord?”――――And add, _I appeal to yourself, whether you did not design this reflection against the clergy in general who differ from you?_ No more than I did against _Moses_ and _Aaron_. I expresly specify whom I design: “Ye who tell the mourners in _Zion_, Much religion hath made you mad.” You say, 5. (with a N. B.) _All the clergy who differ from you, you stile so_, page 82. _in which and the foregoing page you causelesly slander them, as speaking of their own holiness――――as that for the sake of which, on account of which we are justified before God._

Let any serious person read over those pages. I therein _slander_ no man. I speak what I know; what I have both heard and read. The men are alive, and the books are extant. And the same conclusion I now defend, touching that _part_ of the clergy who preach or write thus, viz. “If they preach the truth as it is in Jesus, I am found a false witness before God. But if I preach the way of God in truth, then they are blind leaders of the blind”. 6. You quote those words, “Nor can I be said to intrude into the labours of those who do not labour at all; but suffer thousands of those for whom Christ died, to perish for lack of knowledge.” (_3 Journal_ page 69.) I wrote that letter near _Kingswood_. I would to God the observation were not terribly true! 7. The first passage you cite from the _Earnest Appeal_, page 36. evidently relates to _a few_ only among the clergy: and if the charge be true, but of one in five hundred, it abundantly _supports_ my _reasoning_. 8. In the next, (page 47.) I address all those, and those only, who affirm that I preach for gain.

You conclude, _The reader has now before him the manner in which you have been pleased to treat the clergy――――and your late sermon――――is too fresh an instance of――――the like usage of the universities_――――(page 107.) It is an instance of _speaking the truth in love_. So I desire all mankind may _use_ me. Nor could I have said less either to the university or the clergy, without sinning against God and my own soul.

* 11. But I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you so often term _abusing the clergy_. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few, not all, in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and, 3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now if you will call this, _abusing_, _railing_, or _reviling_, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must _thus rail, thus abuse_ sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.

When I first read your declaration, That our brethren _in general had treated us with all meekness and temper_, I had thoughts of spreading before you a few of the flowers which they have strewed upon us with no sparing hand. But on reflection, I judged it better to forbear. Let them die and be forgotten!

As to those of the _people_ called _Methodists_, whom you suppose to _rail at and abuse the clergy_, and to _revile_ and _censure_ their neighbours, I can only say, Which are they? Shew me the men. And if it appear, that any of those under my care, habitually _censure_ or _revile_ others, whether clergy or laity, I will make them an example, for the benefit of all the rest.

Touching _you_, I believe I was _afraid_ without cause. I do not think you advanced a _wilful untruth_. This was a rash word. I hereby openly retract it, and ask pardon of God and you.

To draw toward a conclusion. Whosoever they are that _despise me, and make no account of my labours_, I know that they are _not in vain in the Lord_, and that I have not _fought as one that beateth the air_. I still see (and I praise _the Father of lights, from whom every good and perfect gift descendeth_) a continual increase of pure religion, and undefiled, of the love of God and man, of the _wisdom_ which is _pure and peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy, and of good fruits_. I see more and more of those “who before lived in a thorough contempt of God’s ordinances, and of all duties, now zealously discharging their duties to God and man, and walking in all his ordinances blameless.” A few indeed I have seen draw back to perdition, chiefly through a fear of being _righteous over-much_. And here and there one has fallen into _Calvinism_, or turned aside to the _Moravians_. But I doubt not, these “are in a better state than they were before they heard us. Admit they are in error, yea and die therein, yet who dares affirm, they will perish everlastingly? But had they died in gross sin, we are sure they had fallen into _the fire that never shall be quenched_.”

I have now considered, as far as my time would permit, (not _every thing_ in your letter, _whether of moment or no_, but) those points, which I conceived to be of the greatest weight. That God may lead us both into all truth, and that we may not drop our love in the pursuit of it, is the continual prayer of,

_Reverend Sir_,
_Your friend and servant for Christ’s sake_,
JOHN WESLEY.

June 17, 1746.

A
LETTER
To the Right REVEREND the
LORD BISHOP of LONDON:

Occasioned by his Lordship’s late charge to his CLERGY.

_Let me not, I pray you, accept any man’s person, neither let
me give flattering titles unto man. For I know not to give
flattering titles. In so doing my Maker would soon take me
away._
JOB xxxiii. 21, 22.

MY LORD,

1. WHEN abundance of persons have for several years laid to my charge things that I knew not, I have generally thought it my duty to pass it over in silence, to be _as one that heard not_. But the case is different, when a person of your lordship’s character calls me forth to answer for myself. Silence now might be interpreted contempt. It might appear like a sullen disregard, a with-holding honour from him to whom honour is due, were it only on account of his high office in the church. More especially, when I apprehend so eminent a person as this, to be under considerable mistakes concerning me. Were I now to be silent, were I not to do what was in my power for the removal of those mistakes, I could not have a conscience void of offence, either towards God or towards man.

2. But I am sensible, how difficult it is to speak in such a manner as I ought, and as I desire to do. When your lordship published those queries, under the title of _observations_, I did not lie under the same difficulty; because, as your name was not inscribed, I had “the liberty to stand, as it were, on even ground.” But I must now always ♦remember to whom I speak. And may the God _whom I serve in the gospel of his Son_, enable me to do it with deep seriousness of spirit, with modesty and humility; and at the same time, with the utmost plainness of speech; seeing we must both stand before the judgment seat of _Christ_.

♦ “rememember” replaced with “remember”

3. In this then I intreat your lordship to bear with me: and in particular, when I speak of myself, (how tender a point!) just as freely as I would of another man. Let not this be termed boasting. Is there not a cause? Can I refrain from speaking, and be guiltless? And if I speak at all, ought I not to speak (what appears to me to be) the whole truth? Does not your lordship desire, that I should do this? I will then, God being my helper. And you will bear with me in my folly (if such it is) with my speaking in the simplicity of my heart.

4. Your lordship begins, _There is another species of enemies, who――――give shameful disturbance to the parochial clergy, and use very unwarrantable methods, to prejudice their people against them, and to seduce their flocks from them――――the_ Methodists _and_ Moravians, _who――――agree in annoying the established ministry; and in drawing over to themselves the lowest and most ignorant of the people, by pretences to greater sanctity_――――page 4.

But have no endeavours been used to shew them their error? Yes: your lordship remarks, _Endeavours have not been wanting――――But though these endeavours have caused some abatement in the_ pomp _and_ grandeur _with which these people for some time acted_ (truly, one would not have expected it from them!) _yet they do not seem――――to have made an impression upon their leaders_. page 6.

Your lordship adds, _Their innovations in points of discipline, I do not intend to enter into at present_――――But _to enquire what the doctrines are which they spread_, page 7.――――_Doctrines big with pernicious influences upon practice_, page 8.

Six of these your lordship mentions, after having premised, _It is not at all needful, to the end of guarding against them, to charge the particular tenets upon the particular persons among them_, page 7. Indeed, my lord, it is needful in the highest degree. For if the minister who is to guard his people, either against _Peter Bohler_, Mr. _Whitefield_, or me, does not know what our particular tenets are, he must needs _run, as uncertainly, and fight, as one that beateth the air_.

I will fairly own, which of these belong to me. The _indirect practices_ which your lordship charges upon me, may then be considered; together with the _consequences_ of these doctrines, and your lordship’s instructions to the clergy.

5. _The first that I shall take notice of_ (says your lordship) _is the_ antinomian _doctrine_. page 8. The second, _That Christ has done all, and left nothing for_ us _to do, but to believe_. page 9. These belong not to me. I am unconcerned therein. I have earnestly opposed, but did never teach or embrace them.

_There is another notion_ (your lordship says) _which we find propagated throughout the writings of those people, and that is, the making_ inward, secret _and sudden_ impulses _the_ guides _of their actions, resolutions and designs._ page 14. Mr. _Church_ urged the same objection before. _Instead of making the word of_ God _the rule of his actions, he follows only his_ secret impulse――――I beg leave to return the same answer. “In the whole compass of language there is not a proposition which less belongs to me than this. I have declared again and again, that I make the word of God _the rule_ of all my actions; and that I no more follow any _secret impulse_ instead thereof, than I follow _Mahomet_ or _Confucius_.” _Answer to Mr._ Church, _page 38_.

6. Before I proceed, suffer me to observe, here are three grievous errors, charged on the _Moravians_, Mr. _Whitefield_ and me conjointly, in none of which I am any more concerned, than in the doctrine of the Metempsychosis! But it was _not needful to charge particular tenets on particular persons_. Just as needful, my lord, as it is not to put a stumbling-block in the way of our brethren: not to lay them under an almost insuperable temptation, of condemning the innocent with the guilty. I beseech your lordship to answer in your own conscience before God, whether you did not foresee how many of your hearers would charge these tenets upon _me_? Nay, whether you did not design they should? If so, my lord, is this Christianity? Is it humanity? Let me speak plain. Is it honest heathenism?

7. I am not one jot more concerned in instantaneous justification, as your lordship explains it, viz. _A sudden instantaneous justification, by which the person receives from_ God, _a certain seal of his salvation, or absolute_ assurance _of being saved at last_, page 11. _Such an instantaneous working of the Holy Spirit, as finishes the business of salvation once for all_, ibid. I neither teach nor believe ♦it, and am therefore clear of all the consequences that may arise therefrom. I believe, _a gradual improvement in grace and goodness_, I mean, in the knowledge and love of God, is a good _testimony of our present sincerity towards_ God: although I dare not say, it is _the only true ground of humble assurance_, or the only foundation on which a Christian builds his _hopes of acceptance and salvation_. For I think _other foundation_ of these _can no man lay, than that which is laid, even_ Jesus Christ.

♦ add omitted word “it” per Errata

8. To the charge of holding _sinless perfection_ as your lordship states it, I might likewise plead, not guilty: seeing one ingredient thereof, in your lordship’s account, is _freedom from temptation_, page 17. Whereas I believe, “there is no such perfection in this life, as implies an entire deliverance from manifold temptations.” But I will not decline the charge. I will repeat once more my coolest thoughts upon this head; and that in the very terms which I did several years ago, as I presume your lordship cannot be ignorant.

“What, it may be asked, do you mean _by one that is perfect_, or, _one that is as his master_? We mean, one in whom is _the mind which was in_ Christ, and who _so walketh as he walked_; a man that _hath clean hands and a pure heart_; or that is _cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit_: one _in whom there is no occasion of stumbling_, and who accordingly _doth not commit sin_. To declare this a little more particularly, we understand by that scriptural expression, _a perfect man_, one in whom God hath fulfilled his faithful word, _from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you――――I will also save you from all your uncleanness_. We understand hereby, one whom God hath _sanctified throughout_, even in _body, soul and spirit_: one who _walketh in the light, as he is in the light_, in whom _is no darkness at all; the blood of_ Jesus Christ _his Son_ having _cleansed him from all sin_.”

“This man can now testify to all mankind, _I am crucified with_ Christ; _nevertheless I live; yet I live not; but_ Christ _liveth in me_. He _is holy, as_ God _who called him is holy_, both in life, and _in all manner of conversation_. He _loveth the_ Lord _his_ God _with all his heart, and serveth him with all his strength_. He _loveth his neighbour_ (every man) _as himself_; yea, _as_ Christ _loved us_: them in particular that _despitefully use him and persecute him_, because _they know not the Son, neither the Father_. Indeed his soul is all love, filled with _bowels of mercies, kindness, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering_. And his life agreeth thereto, full _of the work of faith, the patience of hope, the labour of love_. And _whatsoever he doth, either in word or deed_, he doth _it all in the name_, in the love and power _of the_ Lord Jesus. In a word, he doth the will of God _on earth, as it is done in heaven_.”

“This is to be _a perfect man_, to be _sanctified throughout, created anew in_ Jesus Christ: even ‘to have a heart so all-flaming with the love of God,’ (to use archbishop _Usher_’s words,) ‘as continually to offer up every thought, word, and work, as a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable unto God through Christ.’ In every thought of our hearts, in every word of our tongues, in every work of our hands, _to shew forth his praise who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light_. O that both we, and all who seek the Lord Jesus in sincerity, may thus _be made perfect in one_.”

9. I conjure you, my lord, by the mercies of God, if these are not the words of truth and soberness, point me out wherein I have erred from the truth: shew me clearly, wherein I have spoken either beyond or contrary to the word of God. But might I not humbly intreat, that your lordship, in doing this, would abstain from such expressions as these, _If they will put themselves under their direction and discipline, ――――after their course of discipline is once over_, page 15. as not suitable either to the weight of the subject, or the dignity of your lordship’s character. And might I not expect something more than these loose assertions, that this is _a delusion altogether groundless_, page 15. _A notion contrary to the whole tenor, both of the old and new testament_; that _the scriptures forbid all thought of it, as vain, arrogant and presumptuous_; that they _represent all mankind, without distinction, as subject to sin and corruption_ (subject to sin and corruption! strong words!) _during their continuance in this world: and require no more than an honest_ desire _and_ endeavour, _to find ourselves less and less in a state of imperfection_? page 16.

Is it not from your lordship’s intirely mistaking the question, not at all apprehending what perfection I teach, that you go on to guard against the same imaginary consequences, as your lordship did in _the Observations_? Surely, my lord, you never gave yourself the trouble to read the answer given in the _Farther Appeal_, to every objection which you now urge afresh! seeing you do not now appear to know any more of my sentiments, than if you had never proposed one question, nor received one answer upon the subject!

10. If your lordship designed to shew my real sentiments concerning the last _doctrine which you mention_, as one would imagine by your adding, _these are his own words_, page 18. should you not have cited all my own words? At least all the words of that paragraph, and not have mangled it, as Mr. _Church_ did before?

It runs thus (_Journal_ III. page 47.) “_Saturday 28._ I shewed at large (in order to answer those who taught, that none but they who are full of faith and the Holy Ghost, ought ever to communicate) 1. That the Lord’s _supper_ was ordained by God, to be a _means of conveying_ to men either _preventing_, or _justifying_, or _sanctifying grace_, according to their several necessities. 2. That the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel that they _want_ the _grace_ of God, either to _restrain_ them from sin, or to _shew their sins forgiven_, or to _renew their souls_ in the image of God. 3. That in as much as we come to his table, not to _give_ him anything, but to _receive_ whatsoever he sees best for us, there is _no previous preparation_ indispensably necessary, but _a desire_ to receive whatsoever he pleases to give. And 4. that _no fitness_ is required at the time of communicating, but _a sense of our state_, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness: every one who knows he is _fit for hell_, being just _fit to come to_ Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment.”

In the second letter to Mr. _Church_, page 26. I explain myself farther on this head. “I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s _supper_ also, I _advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things. Such as_, 1. _That a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in_ God’s _mercy through_ Christ, page 117.” You mark these as my words; but I know them not. 2. “_That there is no previous preparation_ indispensably _necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever_ God _pleases to give_.” But I include abundantly more in that _desire_, than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the whole will of God. 3. _That no fitness is required at the time of communicating_, (I recite the whole sentence) “_but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to_ Christ, _in this, as well as in all other ways of his appointment_.” But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest desires of universal holiness.

10. And now what can I say? Had your lordship never seen this? That is hardly to be imagined. But if you had, how was it possible your lordship should thus explicitly and solemnly charge me, in the presence of God and all my brethren (only, the person so charged was not present) with _meaning by those words to_ set aside _self-examination and repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come, as things no way necessary to make a worthy communicant_! page 18.

If an evidence at the bar should swerve from truth, an equitable judge may place the thing in a true light. But if the judge himself shall bear false witness, where then can we find a remedy?

Actual preparation was here intirely out of the question. It might be _absolutely_ and _indispensably_ necessary, for any thing I had either said or _meant_ to the contrary. For it was not at all in my thoughts. And the habitual preparation which I had in terms declared to be _indispensably_ necessary, was “a willingness to know and to do the whole will of God,” and “earnest desires of universal holiness.” Does your lordship think, this is _meant to set aside all repentance for sins past, and resolutions of living better for the time to come_?

11. Your lordship next falls with all your might upon that strange assertion, as you term it, “We come to his table, not to give him any thing, but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us”. _Whereas_, says your lordship, _in the exhortation_ at the time _of receiving, the people are told, that they must_ give _most humble and hearty thanks, ――――and immediately_ after _receiving, both minister and people join, in_ offering _and_ presenting _themselves before_ God, pages 20, 21. O God! in what manner are the most sacred things here treated! The most venerable mysteries of our religion! What quibbling, what playing upon words is here! “Not to _give_ him any thing,”――――“Yes, to _give_ him thanks.” O my lord, are these the words of a father of the church?

12. Your lordship, goes on, _To the foregoing account of these modern principles and doctrines――――it may not be improper to subjoin a few observations upon the indirect_ practices _of the same people in gaining proselytes_, pages 23, 24.

* * * * *

I. _They persuade the people, that the_ established _worship, with a regular attendance upon it, is not sufficient to answer the ends of devotion_.

Your lordship mentioned this likewise in the _observations_. In your fourth _query_ it stood thus: “Whether a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way, does not answer the true ends of devotion?” Suffer me to repeat part of the answer then given.

“I suppose, by devotion you mean public worship; by the _true ends_ of it, the love of God and man: and by _a due and regular attendance on the public offices of religion, paid in a serious and composed way_, the going as often as we can to our parish church, and to the sacrament there administered. If so, the question is, ‘Whether _this attendance_ on _those offices_, does not produce the love of God and man’? I answer sometimes it does; and sometimes it does not. I myself thus attended them for many years; and yet am conscious to myself, that during that whole time, I had no more of the love of God than a stone. And I know many hundreds, perhaps thousands, of serious persons, who are ready to testify the same thing.”

I subjoined, 1. “We continually exhort all who attend on our preaching, to attend the offices of the church. And they do pay a more regular attendance there than ever they did before. 2. Their attending the church did not, in fact, answer those ends at all, till they attended this preaching also. 3. It is the preaching remission of sins through Jesus Christ, which alone answers the true ends of devotion.”

* * * * *

II. 13. _They censure the clergy_, says your lordship, _as less zealous than themselves, in the several branches of the ministerial function_――――For this _they are undeservedly reproached by these noisy, itinerant leaders_, pages 24, 25.

My lord, I am not conscious to myself of this. I do not willingly compare myself with any man, much less do I reproach my brethren of the clergy, whether they deserve it or not. But it is needless to add any more on this head than what was said above a year ago. [2d letter to Mr. _Church_, page 78.]

“I must explain myself a little on that practice, which you so often term _abusing the clergy_. I have many times great sorrow and heaviness in my heart, on account of these my brethren. And this sometimes constrains me to speak to them, in the only way which is now in my power: and sometimes (though rarely) to speak of them; of a few, not all in general. In either case, I take an especial care, 1. To speak nothing but the truth. 2. To speak this with all plainness; and, 3. With love, and in the spirit of meekness. Now, if you will call this _abusing_, _railing_, or _reviling_, you must. But still I dare not refrain from it. I must _thus rail, thus abuse_ sinners of all sorts and degrees, unless I will perish with them.”

* * * * *

III. 14. _♦They value themselves upon extraordinary strictnesses and severities in life, and such as are beyond what the rules of Christianity require. They captivate the people by such professions and appearances of_ uncommon _sanctity――――But that which can never fail of a general respect――――is a quiet and exemplary life, free from the many_ follies _and_ indiscretions _which those restless and vagrant teachers are apt to fall into_, page 25.

♦ “Thy” replaced with “They”

By “extraordinary strictnesses and severities,” I presume your lordship means, the abstaining from wine and animal food; which, it is sure, Christianity does not require. But if you do, I fear your lordship is not throughly informed of the matter of fact. I began to do this, about twelve years ago, when I had no thought of “annoying parochial ministers,” or of “captivating any people” thereby, unless it were the _Chicasaw_ or _Choctau Indians_. But I resumed the use of them both, about two years after, for the sake of some who thought I made it a point of conscience; telling them, _I_ will _eat flesh while the world standeth_, rather than _make my brother to offend_. Dr. _Cheyne_ advised me, to leave them off again, alluring me, “Till you do, you will never be free from fevers.” And since I have taken his advice, I have been free (blessed be God) from all bodily disorders.¹ Would to God I knew any method of being equally free from all _follies_ and _indiscretions_. But this I never expect to attain, till my spirit returns to God.

¹ I continued this about two years.

15. But in how strange a manner does your lordship represent this? What a construction do you put upon it? _Appearances of an_ uncommon _sanctity_, in order to _captivate the people――――Pretensions to more exalted degrees of strictness, to make their way into weak minds and fickle heads_, page 25. _Pretences to greater sanctity_, whereby _they draw over to themselves the most ignorant of the people_, page 4. If these are _appearances of uncommon sanctity_ (which indeed might bear a dispute) how does your lordship know, that they are only _appearances_? That they do not spring from the heart? Suppose these were _exalted degrees of strictness_, is your lordship absolutely assured, that we practise them only _to make_ our _way into weak minds and fickle heads_? Where is the proof, that these _pretences to greater sanctity_ (as you lordship is pleased to phrase them) are mere _pretences_, and have nothing of reality or sincerity in them?

My lord, this is an accusation of the highest nature. If we are guilty, we are not so much as moral Heathens. We are monsters, not only unworthy of the Christian name, but unfit for human society. It tears up all _pretences_ to the love of God and man: to justice, mercy, or truth. But how is it proved? Or does your lordship read the heart, and so pass sentence without any proof at all? O my lord, ought an accusation of the lowest kind to be thus received, even against the lowest of the people? How much less can this be reconciled with the apostolical advice to the bishop of _Ephesus_, _Against a presbyter, receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses_; and those face to face. When it is thus proved, _them that sin, rebuke before all_. Your lordship, doubtless remembers the words that follow (how worthy to be written in your heart!) _I charge thee, before God and the_ Lord Jesus Christ, _and the elect angels, that thou observe these things, without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality_, _1 Timothy_ v. 19, 20, 21.

* * * * *

IV. 16. They _mislead the people into an opinion of the_ high merit _of punctual attendances on their performances, to the neglect of the business of their station_, page 26. My lord, this is not so. You yourself, in this very charge, have cleared us from one part of this accusation. You have born us witness, page 10. that we ♦disclaim all _merit_, even in (really) good works: how much more, in such works as we continually declare are not good, but very evil? Such as the attending sermons, or any public offices, whatever, _to the neglect of the business of our station_.

♦ “disclain” replaced with “disclaim”

When your lordship urged this before, in the _observations_, I openly declared my belief (_Farther Appeal_, part I. page 19.) “That true religion cannot lead into a disregard or disesteem of the common duties and offices of life: that, on the contrary, it leads men to discharge all those duties with the strictest and closest attention: that Christianity requires this attention and diligence, in all stations and in all conditions: that the ♦performance of the lowest offices of life, _as unto_ God, is truly _a serving of_ Christ; and that this is the doctrine I preach continually;” a fact, whereof any man may easily be informed. Now if after all this, your lordship will repeat the charge, as if I had not once opened my mouth concerning it, I cannot help it. I can say no more. I commend my ♠cause to God.

♦ “preformance” replaced with “performance”

♠ “case” replaced with “cause” per Errata

17. Having considered what your lordship has advanced, concerning dangerous _doctrines_ and indirect _practices_, I now come to the instructions your lordship gives to the clergy of your diocese.

* How awful a thing is this! the very occasion carries in it a solemnity not to be expressed. Here is an angel of the church of Christ, one of the stars in God’s right-hand, calling together all the subordinate pastors, for whom he is to give an account to God; and directing them (in the name and by the authority of _the great Shepherd of the sheep_, Jesus Christ, _the first begotten from the dead, the Prince of the kings of the earth_) how to _make full proof of their ministry_, that they may be _pure from the blood of all men_; how to _take heed unto themselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made them overseers_; how to _feed the flock of_ God, _which he hath purchased with his own blood_! To this end they are all assembled together. And what is the substance of all his instructions? “Reverend ♦brethren, I charge you all, lift up your voice like a trumpet! and _warn_ and _arm_ and _fortify_ all mankind――――against a people called _Methodists_.”

♦ “brethen” replaced with “brethren”

True it is, your lordship gives them several advices; but all in order to this end. You direct them, to _inculcate the excellency of our liturgy, as a wise, grave and serious service_: to shew _their people, that a diligent attendance on their business, is a serving of God; punctually to perform both the public offices of the church, and all other pastoral duties_: and to _engage the esteem of their parishioners, by a constant regularity of life_. But all these your lordship recommends _eo nomine_, as means to that great end, “The _arming_ and _fortifying_ their people against the _Moravians_ or _Methodists_, and their doctrines.”

Is it possible! Could your lordship discern no other enemies of the gospel of Christ? Are there no other heretics or schismatics on earth? Or even within the four ♦seas? Are there no papists, no deists in the land? Or are their errors of less importance? Or, are their numbers in _England_ less considerable? Or less likely to increase? Does it appear then that they have lost their zeal for making proselytes? Or, are all the people so _guarded_ against them already, that their labour is in vain? Can your lordship answer these few, plain questions, to the satisfaction of your own conscience?

♦ “sees” replaced with “seas” per Errata

Have the _Methodists_ (so called) already monopolized all the sins, as well as errors, in the nation? Is _Methodism_ the only sin, or the only fatal or spreading sin, to be found within the bills of mortality! Have two thousand (or more) _ambassadors of_ Christ _and stewards of the mysteries of_ God, no other business than to _guard, warn, arm, and fortify_ their people against this? O my lord, if this engrosses their time and strength (as it must, if they follow your lordship’s instructions) they will not give an account with joy, either of themselves or of their flock in that day!

11. Your lordship seems in some measure sensible of this, when you very gently condemn their opinion, who think the _Methodists might better be disregarded and despised, than taken notice of and opposed――――if it were not for the disturbance they give to the parochial ministers, and their unwarrantable endeavours to seduce the people from their lawful pastors_, page 22. The same complaint with which your lordship opened your charge. _They give shameful disturbances to the parochial clergy――――they annoy the established ministry, using very unwarrantable methods, first, to prejudice their people against them, and then to seduce their flocks from them_, page 4.

Whether we seduce them or no (which will be presently considered) I am sorry your lordship should give any countenance to that low, senseless, and now generally exploded slander, that we do it for a maintenance. This your lordship insinuates, by applying to us those words of bishop _Saunderson_, “And all this, _to serve their own belly_, to make a prey of the poor deluded _proselytes_: for by this means _the people fall unto them, and thereout suck they no small advantage_,” page 15. Your lordship cannot but know, that my fellowship, and my brother’s studentship, afford us more than sufficient for life and godliness: especially, for that manner of life which we chuse, whether out of ostentation or in sincerity.

19. But do we willingly _annoy the established ministry_, or _give disturbance to the parochial clergy_? My lord, we do not. We trust, herein, to have a conscience void of offence. Nor do we designedly _prejudice their people against them_. In this also our heart condemneth us not. But you _seduce their flocks from them_. No, not even from those who feed themselves, not the flock. All who hear us attend the service of the church, at least as much as they did before. And for this very thing, are we reproached as “bigots to the church,” by those of most other denominations.

* Give me leave, my lord, to say, you have mistook and misrepresented this whole affair from the top to the bottom. And I am the more concerned to take notice of this, because so many have fallen into the same mistake. It is indeed, and has been from the beginning, the πρῶτον ψεῦδος, the capital blunder of our bitterest adversaries: though how they can advance it, I see not, without _loving_, if not _making a lie_. It is not our care, endeavour, or desire, to _proselyte_ any from one man to another, or from one church (so called) from one congregation, or society to another: (we would not move a finger to do this; to make ten thousand such proselytes) but from darkness to light, from Belial to Christ; from the power of Satan to God. Our one aim is, to proselyte sinners to repentance, the servants of the devil to serve the living and true God. If this be not done in fact, we will stand condemned; not as well-meaning fools, but as devils incarnate. But if it be, if the instances glare in the face of the sun, if they increase daily, maugre all the power of earth and hell: then, my lord, neither you nor any man beside (let me use great plainness of speech) can _oppose_ and _fortify people against us_, without being found _even to fight against_ God.

20. I would fain set this point in a clearer light. Here are, in and near _Moorfields_, ten thousand poor souls for whom Christ died, rushing headlong into hell. Is Dr. _Bulkely_, the parochial minister, both willing and able to stop them? If so, let it be done, and I have no place in these parts. I go and call other sinners to repentance. But if after all he has done, and all he can do, they are still in the broad way to destruction, let me see if God will put a word, even in my mouth. True, I am a poor worm that of myself can do nothing. But if God sends, by whomsoever he will send, his word shall not return empty. All the messenger of God asks, is Δὸς ποῦ στῶ; (no help of man!) καὶ γῆν κινήσω· The arm of the Lord is revealed. The lion roars, having the prey plucked out of his teeth. And _there is joy in the presence of the angels of_ God, _over_ more than _one sinner that repenteth_.

21. Is this any _annoyance_ to the parochial minister? Then what manner of spirit is he of? Does he look on this part of his flock as lost, because they are found of the great Shepherd?――――My lord, great is my boldness toward you. You speak of the _consequences_ of our doctrines. You seem well pleased with the success of your _endeavours_ against them, because (you say) they _have pernicious consequences, are big with pernicious influences upon practice,――――dangerous to religion and the souls of men_, pages 8, 22. In answer to all this, I appeal to plain fact. I say once more, “What have been the _consequences_ (I would not speak, but I dare not refrain) of the doctrines I have preached for nine years last past? By the fruits shall ye know those of whom I speak: even the cloud of witnesses, who at this hour experience the gospel which I preach, to be the power of God unto salvation. The habitual drunkard, that was, is now temperate in all things. The whoremonger now flees fornication. He that stole steals no more, but works with his hands. He that cursed or swore, perhaps at every sentence, has now learned to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence. Those formerly inslaved to various habits of sin, are now brought to uniform habits of holiness. These are demonstrable facts. I can name the men, with their places of abode. One of them was an avowed _♦Atheist_ for many years; some were _Jews_; a considerable number _Papists_: the greatest part of them as much strangers to the form, as to the power of godliness.”

♦ “Athiest” replaced with “Atheist”

My lord, can you deny these facts? I will make whatever proof of them you shall require. But if the facts be allowed, who can deny the doctrines to be (in substance) the gospel of Christ? _For is there any other name under heaven given to men, whereby they may_ thus _be saved_? Or is there any other word that thus _commendeth itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of_ God?

* 22. But I must draw to a conclusion. Your lordship has without doubt had some success in _opposing_ this doctrine. Very many have, by your lordship’s unwearied _endeavours_, been deterred from hearing at all: and have thereby probably escaped the being _seduced_ into holiness, have lived and died in their sins. My lord, the time is short. I am past the noon of life, and my remaining years flee away as a shadow. Your lordship is old and full of days, having past the usual age of man. It cannot therefore be long before we shall both drop this house of earth, and stand naked before God: no, nor before we shall see the great white throne coming down from heaven, and him that sitteth thereon. On his left-hand shall be those who are shortly to dwell in everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. In that number will be all who died in their sins: and among the rest, those whom you _preserved_ from repentance. Will you then rejoice in your success? The Lord God grant it may not be said in that hour, “These have perished in their iniquity: but their blood I require at thy hands.”

I am,

_Your lordship’s dutiful son and servant_,
JOHN WESLEY.
LONDON,
_June 11, 1747_.

A
LETTER
To a CLERGYMAN.

TULLAMORE, _May 4, 1748_.

_Rev. Sir_,

I HAVE at present neither leisure nor inclination to enter into a formal controversy: but you will give me leave, just to offer a few loose hints, relating to the subject of last night’s conversation.

1. Seeing life and health are things of so great importance, it is, without question, highly expedient, that physicians should have all possible advantages of learning and education.

2. That trial should be made of them by competent judges, before they practise publicly.

3. That after such trial, they be authorized to practise by those who are impowered to convey that authority.

4. And that while they are preserving the lives of others, they should have what is sufficient to sustain their own.

5. But supposing a gentleman bred at the university in _Dublin_, with all the advantages of education: after he has undergone all the usual trials, and then been regularly authorized to practise.

6. Suppose, I say, this physician settles at ―――― for some years, and yet makes no cures at all: but after trying his skill on five hundred persons, cannot shew that he has healed one; many of his patients dying under his hands, and the rest remaining just as they were before he came.

7. Will you condemn a man, who having some little skill in physic, and a tender compassion for those who are sick or dying all-around him, cures many of those, without fee or reward, whom the doctor could not cure?

8. At least, _did_ not (which is the same thing as to the case in hand) were it only for this reason, because he did not go to them, and they would not come to him.

9. Will you condemn him, because he has not learning? Or has not had an university education?

What then? He cures those whom the man of learning and education cannot cure.

10. Will you object, That he is no physician, nor has any authority to practise?

I cannot come into your opinion. I think, he is a physician who heals; _Medicus est qui medetur_: and that every man has authority to save the life of a dying man.

But if you only mean, he has no authority to take fees, I contend not: for he takes none at all.

11. Nay, and I am afraid it will hold, on the other hand, _Medicus non est qui non medetur_: I am afraid, if we use propriety of speech, he is no physician who works no cure.

12. “O, but he has taken his degree of doctor of physic, and therefore has authority.”

Authority to do what? “Why, to heal all the sick that will employ him.” But (to wave the case of those who will not employ him: and would you have even _their_ lives thrown away?) He does not heal those that do employ him. He that was sick before, is sick still; or else he is gone hence, and is no more seen.

Therefore his authority is not worth a rush; for it serves not the end for which it was given.

13. And surely he has no authority to kill them, by hindering another from saving their lives!

14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or dislikes him for it, it is plain to all thinking men, he regards his own fees, more than the lives of his patients.

* * * * *

II. Now to apply. 1. Seeing life everlasting and holiness, or health of soul, are things of so great importance, it is highly expedient, that ministers being physicians of the soul, should have all advantages of education and learning.

2. That full trial should be made of them, in all respects, and that by the most competent judges, before they enter on the public exercise of their office, The saving souls from death.

3. That after such trial, they be authorized to exercise that office, by those who are impowered to convey that authority: (I believe, bishops are impowered to do this, and have been so, from the apostolic age.)

4. And that those whose souls they save, ought mean time to provide them what is needful for the body.

5. But suppose a gentleman bred at the university in _Dublin_, with all the advantages of education: after he has undergone the usual trials, and been regularly authorized to save souls from death.

6. Suppose, I say, this minister settles at ―――― for some years, and yet saves no soul at all; saves no sinners from their sins; but after he has preached all this time to five or six hundred persons, cannot shew, that he has converted one from the error of his ways.

Many of his parishioners dying as they lived and the rest remaining just as they were before he came.

7. Will you condemn a man, who having compassion on dying souls, and some knowledge of the gospel of Christ, without any temporal reward, saves many from their sins, whom the minister could not save?

8. At least _did_ not: nor ever was likely to do it; for he did not go to them, and they would not come to him.

9. Will you condemn such a preacher, because he has not learning? Or has not had an university education?

What then? He saves those sinners from their sins, whom the man of learning and education cannot save.

A peasant being brought before the college of physicians at _Paris_, a learned doctor accosted him, “What, friend, do you pretend to prescribe to people that have agues? Dost thou know what an ague is?”

He replied, “Yes, Sir, an ague is, what I can cure, and you cannot.”

10. Will you object, “But he is no minister; nor has any authority to save souls?”

I must beg leave to dissent from you in this. I think, he is a true, evangelical minister, διάκονος, servant of Christ and his church, who οὕτως διακονεῖ, so ministers, as to save souls from death, to reclaim sinners from their sins: and that every Christian, if he is able to do it, has authority to save a dying soul.

But if you only mean, he has no authority to take tythes, I grant it. He takes none. As he has freely ♦received, so he freely gives.

♦ “recieved” replaced with “received”

11. But to carry the matter a little farther, I am afraid, it will hold on the other hand, with regard to the soul as well as the body, _Medicus non est qui non medetur_. I am afraid, reasonable men will be much inclined to think, he that saves no souls is no minister of Christ.

12. “O, but he is ordained, and therefore has authority.”――――

Authority to do what? To save all the souls that will put themselves under his care. True; but (to wave the case of them that will not. And would you desire that even those should perish?) he does not, in fact, save them that are under his care. Therefore, what end does his authority serve? He that was a drunkard, is a drunkard still. The same is true of the sabbath-breaker, the thief, the common swearer. This is the best of the case: for many have died in their iniquity, and their blood will God require at the watchman’s hand.

13. For surely he has no authority to murder souls: either by his neglect, by his smooth if not false doctrine, or by hindering another from plucking them out of the fire, and bringing them to life everlasting.

14. If he either attempts or desires to hinder him, if he condemns or is displeased with him for it, how great reason is there to fear, that he regards his own profit, more than the salvation of souls?

_I am, Rev. Sir,_
_Your affectionate brother_,
J. W.

A
LETTER
To the AUTHOR of the
_Enthusiasm_ of _Methodists_ and _Papists_ compared.

_Agedum! Pauca accipe contra._
HORACE.

SIR,

1. IN your late pamphlets you have undertaken to prove, that Mr. _Whitefield_ and _I_, are gross enthusiasts; and that our _¹whole conduct is but a counter-part of the most wild fanaticisms of the most abominable communion in its most corrupt ages_.

¹ Preface, page 3.

You endeavour to support this charge against us, by quotations from our own writings: compared with quotations from celebrated writers of the _Romish_ communion.

2. It lies upon me answer for one. But I must not burden you with too long an answer; lest ¹(_for want either of leisure or inclination_) you should not give this, any more than my other tracts, a reading. In order therefore to spare both you and myself, I shall at present consider only your first part; and that as briefly as possible. Accordingly I shall not meddle with your other quotations; but leaving them to whom they may concern, shall only examine, whether those you have made from my writings, prove the charge of enthusiasm, or no.

¹ Preface, page 5.

This, I conceive, will be abundantly sufficient, to decide the question between you and me. If these do prove the charge, I am cast: if they do not, if they are the words of truth and soberness, it will be an objection of no real weight, against sentiments just in themselves, though they should also be found in the writings of _Papists_: yea, of _Mahometans_ or _Pagans_.